CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 61423/19 Maria das Dores ALPALHÃO PEREIRA DA CRUZ against Portugal (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   January 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan , President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 November 2019, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect were communicated to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) In the present application, having regard to the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot be established that the applicant suffered in Tires Prison from severe overcrowding of the kind that could entail on its own a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, § 114, 20 October 2016). Nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Bokor v.   Portugal (dec.) no. 5227/18, §§ 32-34, 10 December 2020). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention) According to the Court’s established case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, §   52, Series A no. 131, and Narcisio v. Netherlands (dec.), no. 47810/99, 27   January 2005). Having regard to the findings above in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 about the conditions of detention, the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an “arguable claim”, and that therefore Article 13 is not applicable. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances alleged by the applicants Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law 61423/19 20/11/2019 Maria das Dores ALPALHÃO PEREIRA DA CRUZ 1959 Carreto Vítor Torres Vedras Prison de Tires 08/02/2007 pending More than 15 years and 9 months and 11 days 4 inmates 3.5 – 6.6 m² 1 toilet overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, inadequate temperature Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention